| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Summary:
Umpire had arbitrarily reduced the penalty from 100% to 25%. The FCA held that the Umpire gave no reasons to indicate how he arrived at a penalty of 25%. The penalty imposed at 100% was well below the maximum limit set by S.38 of the EIA. The Commission found no extenuating circumstances and the Court was unable to conclude that the Commission had not exercised its discretionary power in a judicial manner. No basis for the Umpire to interfere with the Commission's decision.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
penalties |
commission policy |
|
Summary:
Umpire had arbitrarily reduced the penalty from 100% to 25%. The FCA held that the Umpire gave no reasons to indicate how he arrived at a penalty of 25%. The penalty imposed at 100% was well below the maximum limit set by S.38 of the EIA. The Commission found no extenuating circumstances and the Court was unable to conclude that the Commission had not exercised its discretionary power in a judicial manner. No basis for the Umpire to interfere with the Commission's decision.
